Evidence for the Validity of Christianity. Where?

[Washington]

I can't think of a single thing that's ever been posited in favor of Christian belief that didn't come down to sheer faith. IOW, there is nothing the Christian has been able to point to as evidence outside of their assertion that their faith is true or valid. In light of this, why would the non-believer take the word of the Christian over the word of those of other faiths? I know some will us the "try it out" tactic, expecting the non-believer to be overwhelmed as they were by the "feeling or subjective apprehension of truth," but responses such as this are hardly unique to Christianity. So it really fails as any kind of tool.

My question then is: Is there anything the Christianity has to offer for evidence of its validity other than a reliance on faith or an emotional response?

Moreover, if there is not, why would a caring god not make sure such evidence existed for those of us, like myself, who find subjective claims far from persuasive and, in fact, rather specious?

 

[AV1611VET]

My question then is: Is there anything the Christianity has to offer for evidence of its validity other than a reliance on faith or an emotional response?

Yes --- the United States of America.

No Christianity = no USA.

!!! JERUSALEM !!!

 

[Emmy]

Dear Washington. If you are sincere in wanting to have, or see Evidence for the Validity of Christianity, the only sure evidence can be given you by Christ Himself. You will not believe the thousands upon thousand of Christians in the world, you will not believe personal testimonies, what else could there be? I cannot resist pointing out, " there are none as blind, as those who do not want to see." I say this with humility and love, Washington. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[solarwave]

I think one of the best evidences for Christianity is Jesus resurrection. Ok, so most historians, christian or otherwise except that Jesus was a real man 2000 years ago, who lived, preach, was crucified and people claimed Him to be God after His death. If we accept this and that around 2000 years ago christianity was a real faith starting to be spread, we can ask, why didnt the important people of the time bring out Jesus body and say, 'here is Jesus dead body, he did die and stay dead', if they had done that it would have stopped christianity from the start. But they did not, because the body was no longer there.

If the body wasn't there where was it? Could the disciples have taken it? Consider that there was a large rock placed in front of the tomb which would take many men to move and that there were roman guards guarding the tomb, it would have been impossible. The guards were well trained and knew that if they fell asleep they would be killed, so that couldnt have happened. Also the only reason they would run away would be if the was a very good reason to (an angel?) otherwise they would be killed for running away.

Also consider, the disciples KNEW the truth. They KNEW if what they were saying was true or not, because they were saying there had seen Jesus raised from the dead. They were ether lying or telling the truth of what they saw, and so knew 100% if it was true or false. Ok now consider that their Lord has just been killed and everything they had hoped for has come to an end and its most likely they are scared of being killed them selfs for following Jesus. Why would they start spreading a lie they they know is not true and that all they will gain is being hated and most likely death. (I think all except one disciple was killed for they said about Jesus). Why would they do it if it was not true? I wouldnt, and nor would anyone else.

Also there are peoples lives turned around by Jesus now and then. Paul once was putting christians in prision after Jesus death, but then Jesus appeared to him and he completely changed. There are storys of just as screwed up lives turned round by Christ.

I have more to say but thats enough for now. Remember that you can't 100% prove God, but take all the evidence together makes quite a good reason to believe.

 

[Washington]

Dear Washington. If you are sincere in wanting to have, or see Evidence for the Validity of Christianity, the only sure evidence can be given you by Christ Himself. You will not believe the thousands upon thousand of Christians in the world, you will not believe personal testimonies, what else could there be? I cannot resist pointing out, " there are none as blind, as those who do not want to see." I say this with humility and love, Washington. Emmy, sister in Christ.

Not to sound flip, but what is your Christ waiting for? I await his presentation of the evidence.

I think one of the best evidences for Christianity is Jesus resurrection.

If one buys the story. But we only have the say-so of a book stitched together over hundreds of years and the accounts of the resurrection written many years after the fact. This hardly constitutes good evidence, particularly when one considers that the books were purposely selected so as to represent a united, foregone theology. So citing the Bible does not constitute good evidence. No more so than would citing any other single source be good evidence for anything. Unusual claims demand unusual evidence.

 

[solarwave]

If one buys the story. But we only have the say-so of a book stitched together over hundreds of years and the accounts of the resurrection written many years after the fact. This hardly constitutes good evidence, particularly when one considers that the books were purposely selected so as to represent a united, foregone theology. So citing the Bible does not constitute good evidence. No more so than would citing any other single source be good evidence for anything. Unusual claims demand unusual evidence.

The bible was all put together at one time and has not changed since then. The accounts were written in the life time of those alive when Jesus was. The books were selected to show who God really is. It is like saying because scientists select theories that make sense with the evidence makes them wrong. But if historians show Jesus was a real man who was crucified, and that christianity is a real thing that spread 2000 years ago, alot of what I said still makes sense if you really think about it. You have to accept that some of the things in the bible did really happen historically (even if Jesus isnt the Son of God) and that the bible isn't some book detached from history.

 

[Washington]

The bible was all put together at one time and has not changed since then. The accounts were written in the life time of those alive when Jesus was. The books were selected to show who God really is. It is like saying because scientists select theories that make sense with the evidence makes them wrong. But if historians show Jesus was a real man who was crucified, and that christianity is a real thing that spread 2000 years ago, alot of what I said still makes sense if you really think about it. You have to accept that some of the things in the bible did really happen historically (even if Jesus isnt the Son of God) and that the bible isn't some book detached from history.

I'm chalking up your ignorance to your youth. And in as much as your reply doesn't bear on my request I'm assuming you have no further evidence to offer. But I do thank you for your effort.

 

[Everlasting33]

I can empathize with your post, Washington.

Have you thoroughly researched archeological evidence? If so, have you found anything of interest?

 

[Washington]

Have you thoroughly researched archeological evidence?

Hardly.

If so, have you found anything of interest?

I think I've seen most of the the relevant archeology that's been presented, and none of it comes close to supporting the theological claims of Christianity.

 

[ebia]

I can't think of a single thing that's ever been posited in favor of Christian belief that didn't come down to sheer faith. IOW, there is nothing the Christian has been able to point to as evidence outside of their assertion that their faith is true or valid. In light of this, why would the non-believer take the word of the Christian over the word of those of other faiths? I know some will us the "try it out" tactic, expecting the non-believer to be overwhelmed as they were by the "feeling or subjective apprehension of truth," but responses such as this are hardly unique to Christianity. So it really fails as any kind of tool.

Historically the overwhelming reason why non-Christians have taken Christian claims seriously has been the transformed lives they see in Christian communities.

My question then is: Is there anything the Christianity has to offer for evidence of its validity other than a reliance on faith or an emotional response?

You seem to be equivocating between private experience and "faith/emotional response". Lack of public evidence is not the same as "its all based on faith and emotions" despite a current tendency to equivocate public and objective and then rule everything that is not "objective" (by which they really mean "not public") as subjective. The real division is not usually between objective and subjective but between public and private.

Moreover, if there is not, why would a caring god not make sure such evidence existed for those of us, like myself, who find subjective claims far from persuasive and, in fact, rather specious?

(Noting as above that it's often not a case of subjective but of private) you presume that God should meet the particular criteria of your particular culture, even though it's a culture neither universal in time nor geography and a culture forged in a enlightment that pretty explicitly had shoving God upstairs as something at best unknowable and therefore safely ignorable as one of it's aims. Saying "prove Christ assuming enlightenment principles" makes as little sense as asking Paul to prove Christ assuming the pagan assumptions of Corinth.

If one is really willing to do the hard historical graft then one can go and look at the resurrection. Chrisitanity is highly unusual if not unique in world religions in that its most central claim is of a particular historical event and that is at least potentially examinable by historical means. (Few if any other religions have an historical event at their centre, and therefore put their credibility up for potential falsifiability in the same way). However, examining that historical event 2000 years later requires an openness to considering the realities of historical investigation - not to short soundbites. (Eg N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God" runs to about 700 pages of pretty technical stuff, and depends itself on the two previous volumes in his series.) And if one presumes naturalism and consistancy - as scientific investigation must - then one has to rule the resurrection "impossible" a-priori.

 

[ebia]

If one buys the story. But we only have the say-so of a book stitched together over hundreds of years

The fact that the bible took some time to be collated is a red-herring. Mentioning it tends to point towards a disinterest in the historical argument.

and the accounts of the resurrection written many years after the fact.

All the historical evidence points to the resurrection accounts being very, very early.

This hardly constitutes good evidence, particularly when one considers that the books were purposely selected so as to represent a united, foregone theology. So citing the Bible does not constitute good evidence.

Citing the bible (and other connected sources) is what any historian - Christian, secular, or otherwise - has to do examining the claims of early Christianity. As with any historical investigation one uses all the relevant data. One uses it critically, but one simply cannot ignore it or one has ceased to be interested in doing the history. Simply saying "the bible says ...." isn't suffient, but neither can the the New Testament text be ignored unless one really isn't interested in the data.

No more so than would citing any other single source be good evidence for anything.

The New Testament is not a single source, but a collection of a number of sources. In the case of the Resurrection narratives at least 5.

Unusual claims demand unusual evidence.

As I said, if one assumes a-priori that resurrections cannot happen then no amount of historical data is going to overcome that. Never-the-less if one suspends that assumption there is some historical evidence that it did happen. Examining how strong that evidence is requires some openness to taking on board how the study of ancient history actually works - saying "you cannot use the bible" demonstrates a refusal to do that as clearly as saying "it's true because the bible says so" would do.

To be honest I think almost no-one changes their fundamental world-view because of so called objective evidence. People take Christianity seriously when they hear the Christian stories, see Christians putting the Kingdom of God into action, and that suffiently challenges their existing assumptions for them to think "hey, maybe there something going on here that makes some sense; that makes more sense of the world than my existing views". Stories told, seen and experienced challenge and change worldviews, not "evidence" - because worldviews (including the "rationalist" one) are never fundamentally evidence based but are ways of interpreting evidence.

 

[thenumb]

I think one of the best evidences for Christianity is Jesus resurrection. Ok, so most historians, christian or otherwise except that Jesus was a real man 2000 years ago, who lived, preach, was crucified and people claimed Him to be God after His death. If we accept this and that around 2000 years ago christianity was a real faith starting to be spread, we can ask, why didnt the important people of the time bring out Jesus body and say, 'here is Jesus dead body, he did die and stay dead', if they had done that it would have stopped christianity from the start. But they did not, because the body was no longer there.

If the body wasn't there where was it? Could the disciples have taken it? Consider that there was a large rock placed in front of the tomb which would take many men to move and that there were roman guards guarding the tomb, it would have been impossible. The guards were well trained and knew that if they fell asleep they would be killed, so that couldnt have happened. Also the only reason they would run away would be if the was a very good reason to (an angel?) otherwise they would be killed for running away.

Also consider, the disciples KNEW the truth. They KNEW if what they were saying was true or not, because they were saying there had seen Jesus raised from the dead. They were ether lying or telling the truth of what they saw, and so knew 100% if it was true or false. Ok now consider that their Lord has just been killed and everything they had hoped for has come to an end and its most likely they are scared of being killed them selfs for following Jesus. Why would they start spreading a lie they they know is not true and that all they will gain is being hated and most likely death. (I think all except one disciple was killed for they said about Jesus). Why would they do it if it was not true? I wouldnt, and nor would anyone else.

Also there are peoples lives turned around by Jesus now and then. Paul once was putting christians in prision after Jesus death, but then Jesus appeared to him and he completely changed. There are storys of just as screwed up lives turned round by Christ.

I have more to say but thats enough for now. Remember that you can't 100% prove God, but take all the evidence together makes quite a good reason to believe.

what about the sky god Horus from egyptian mythology?

 

[Emmy]

Dear Washington. Not wanting to sound flip, are you expecting Christ to present the Evidence to you personally? Since the numbers of us are too great, Jesus told us in God`s Word: " ask and you will be answered." I have found that many of us are answered, soon after they asked, and many have given up asking, because there was no answer. I have heard some Christians say, God will answer everyone who is ready to listen, and God always knows the right time. That makes perfect sense to me, because God knows our every wish, as well as our motives. If I may give this advice, and I do so with love and humility, If you want Evidence, keep asking. God is no Liar, Washington. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[Washington]

"The real division is not usually between objective and subjective but between public and private.

Okay. Show me the private objective evidence or the public objective evidence. That's essentially what I'm looking for.

If one is really willing to do the hard historical graft then one can go and look at the resurrection.

Where?

Chrisitanity is highly unusual if not unique in world religions in that its most central claim is of a particular historical event and that is at least potentially examinable by historical means.

Well, potentially is a far cry from actually.

And if one presumes naturalism and consistancy - as scientific investigation must - then one has to rule the resurrection "impossible" a-priori.

Not "rule" but assume. I leave open the possibility of just about anything in our universe, which is why I said, "unusual claims require unusual evidence. Want to claim some kind of supernatural event took place? Okey dokey, but your evidence will have to be pretty darn good. Far above the sort of evidence one would accept for natural events.

All the historical evidence points to the resurrection accounts being very, very early.

What historical evidence? The only such evidence I've seen comes from sources that had a vital interest in the truth of the assertion. Nothing from any disinterested, unbiased source.

Simply saying "the bible says ...." isn't sufficient, but neither can the the New Testament text be ignored unless one really isn't interested in the data.

And I didn't say the NT had to be ignored. After all, it is the source of almost all Christian claims. But just because that's become its function doesn't lend it any more credibility for its claims of supernatural than the old Scandinavian beliefs lend old Norse mythologies credibility.

The New Testament is not a single source, but a collection of a number of sources. In the case of the Resurrection narratives at least 5.

So what? As I've already pointed out, they were selected only because they represented a united, foregone theology. Those that failed to do so were not included. It was biased "evidence" gathering.

To be honest I think almost no-one changes their fundamental world-view because of so called objective evidence.

I would be nice if this wasn't the case, but I know that most religious belief demands it. "Don't look at what 'they' have to offer. Hold onto your belief no matter what." It's a human failing to be sure, but not a universal one.

Not wanting to sound flip, are you expecting Christ to present the Evidence to you personally?

Well, you're the one who said, "the only sure evidence can be given you by Christ Himself." When someone says, "Given to X by Y," unless otherwise qualified I typically take that as a one to one exchange. Now you say this isn't the case.

Since the numbers of us are too great,

Really! So when I've been told that "With god all things are possible" it means all things are possible EXCEPT any one-on-one dialog, because . . . . . . . . . ? With god all things are NOT possible?




In any case people, please note that the Bible is not evidence enough. So there is no use in persuing this avenue of evidence.

 

[solarwave]

I'm chalking up your ignorance to your youth. And in as much as your reply doesn't bear on my request I'm assuming you have no further evidence to offer. But I do thank you for your effort.

To be honest Im not sure if what you said is an insult or you being nice, but since my age seems to have something to do with it I doubt any futher contribution would be looked on well. Sorry if thats not what you ment but since I didnt get a full response, thats how I see it.

Good luck

 

[Washington]

To be honest Im not sure if what you said is an insult or you being nice, but since my age seems to have something to do with it I doubt any futher contribution would be looked on well. Sorry if thats not what you ment but since I didnt get a full response, thats how I see it.

Good luck

Not an insult at all, simply an observation.

 

[ebia]

Okay. Show me the private objective evidence or the public objective evidence. That's essentially what I'm looking for.

Private evidence, by definition, can't be shown. That's what makes it private rather than public.

Where?

In the work of the historians who analyse it.

Not "rule" but assume. I leave open the possibility of just about anything in our universe, which is why I said, "unusual claims require unusual evidence. Want to claim some kind of supernatural event took place? Okey dokey, but your evidence will have to be pretty darn good. Far above the sort of evidence one would accept for natural events.

Where you set that bar is your call to make.

What historical evidence? The only such evidence I've seen comes from sources that had a vital interest in the truth of the assertion. Nothing from any disinterested, unbiased source.

History doesn't have disinterested, unbiased, sources. Ever. All historical work relies on (critically) using biased sources. Simplistic notions won't do - rather one has to look at whatever sources one has and critically examine such things as how early they appear to be, how they could have otherwise be derived, do the details they contain look like the sorts of details one would have put in if one were making the stories up later, etc. Most (not all) serious historians of the resurrection come to a conclusion that (a) the tomb was empty on easter morning (b) that Jesus' closest followers believed and reported seeing him bodily over the following days (c) that there was no previous expection of a risen messiah (d) that explanations such as visions and ghosts won't do - those were well established concepts and had completely different language and conclusions to go with them. (e) that the early Christians very quickly built their entire lives and theology around what they thought had happened that morning. What one concludes from that is a philosophic conclusion, not an historical one, but the above does represent pretty solid historical conclusions.

There are historians studying the event that don't come to soem of the above conclusions - but they are usually if not always historians who start with "resurrections don't happen" as a fundamental assumption. In which case any other explanation of the data is preferable, no matter what the problems are with it.

And I didn't say the NT had to be ignored. After all, it is the source of almost all Christian claims. But just because that's become its function doesn't lend it any more credibility for its claims of supernatural than the old Scandinavian beliefs lend old Norse mythologies credibility.

Very few other such sources have central events on which everything else is based happening in the immediate past. The big, central, events of mythologies happen "a long time ago in a land far away", not just down the road a few years ago - if they have central events at all. No other religion has as its central claim a definite event in the immediate past.

So what? As I've already pointed out, they were selected only because they represented a united, foregone theology. Those that failed to do so were not included. It was biased "evidence" gathering.

Historical investigation simply doesn't support that.

I would be nice if this wasn't the case, but I know that most religious belief demands it. "Don't look at what 'they' have to offer. Hold onto your belief no matter what." It's a human failing to be sure, but not a universal one.

I don't think it's that simple - our worldviews are the frameworks by which we assess the world around us, including how we deal with evidence. Trying to assess them based on evidence generally ends up being circular. Those who call themselves rationalist are no more immune to that problem than anyone else - frequenctly they are less likely than others to have made explicit, let alone critically examined, their own fundamental assumptions, philosophy and epistimology.

Rationalists aren't rationalists because before becoming rationalists they examined rationalism with rationalist principles - such would be a circular nonsense. Rationlists, like Christians, are that either because that's the culture they grew up in, or because the philosophy they did grow up in encountered too many stories it couldn't deal with so they searched for something else that could deal with those stories.

 

[Washington]

In the work of the historians who analyse it.

Reading what analyzing historians may have concluded is not "looking at the resurrection." It's looking at what analyzing historians may have concluded. You do understand don't you that other than the Bible and a few "unscriptual" writings, historians have next to nothing to work with concerning the OP subject.

Historical investigation simply doesn't support that.

Then I suggest you read up on the history of the construction of the Bible.

our worldviews are the frameworks by which we assess the world around us, including how we deal with evidence. Trying to assess them based on evidence generally ends up being circular.

But the underpinnings of religious faith do not constitute world views. And this is what I'm asking for. I'm not looking for what shaped anyone's world view, but the evidence for the specifics of the Christian belief.

I appreciate your dialog here; however, in as much as I don't take the claims of a single source, the Bible, or the lack of evidence religious historians are forced to work with as compelling, I don't think this line of argument is worth pursuing any further. But I do thank you for your thoughtful comments.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

I can't think of a single thing that's ever been posited in favor of Christian belief that didn't come down to sheer faith. IOW, there is nothing the Christian has been able to point to as evidence outside of their assertion that their faith is true or valid. In light of this, why would the non-believer take the word of the Christian over the word of those of other faiths? I know some will us the "try it out" tactic, expecting the non-believer to be overwhelmed as they were by the "feeling or subjective apprehension of truth," but responses such as this are hardly unique to Christianity. So it really fails as any kind of tool.

My question then is: Is there anything the Christianity has to offer for evidence of its validity other than a reliance on faith or an emotional response?

Moreover, if there is not, why would a caring god not make sure such evidence existed for those of us, like myself, who find subjective claims far from persuasive and, in fact, rather specious?

I am not aware of any evidence outside of faith or emotional response regarding the validity of Christianity. While there is archaeological proff of various people and events, none of these lead directly to proof of God.

So far as to why there is not the kid of evidence you are looking for I don't know. What kind of evidence would you find satisfactory?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Washington]

I am not aware of any evidence outside of faith or emotional response regarding the validity of Christianity. While there is archaeological proff of various people and events, none of these lead directly to proof of God.

So far as to why there is not the kid of evidence you are looking for I don't know. What kind of evidence would you find satisfactory?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

In one sense, I'm not sure. As I've said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and exactly what that could be is up for grabs. But I do know it would have be be corroborated by a multiple secular, non-Christian entities that had no faith-based interests in it.

As you recognize, there doesn't seem to be any at all. In fact, many aspects of the Christian belief argue against each other, and it is only by ignoring them that they do as little damage as they do to the faith. But this is a side issue I don't care to get into here.